Rex on CCS

Introduction

 This weeks guest blogger is Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump's selection for secretary of state and CEO of ExxonMobil, the worlds biggest oil company.

Rex on CCS

 I have, unlike my predecessors at ExxonMobil, gone on record time and again and openly said that I believe in anthropogenic climate change. However, to quote Hillary, I of course have both a public and private position...

 I am a realist and recognise that ExxonMobil will not see the middle of the century unless it evolves. I have advocated a carbon tax (a tax on emitted CO2; see this ExxonMobil blog) and under my leadership ExxonMobil is positioning itself as a world leader in carbon capture and storage.

See the youtube video below to see me discussing my views on climate change.

See the youtube video below to see me discussing my views on carbon taxes.

 As you can see in the video above, I believe in the implementation of a carbon tax - for it does not inhibit economic growth and can be implemented across borders. Off the back of the introduction of a carbon tax, CCS would likely grow exponentially. Here is why I support a carbon tax and CCS:

• A double pronged carbon tax/CCS approach extends our corporation's operating lifetime. Without a tax on carbon, CCS isn't economically viable; without CCS, our corporation will eventually be left behind.
• Cai et al., (2014) modelled the effect of carbon taxation upon CCS deployment. The study found that CCS was not economically viable alongside a carbon tax - unless the captured CO2 was used to implement enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
• How wonderful for us! Not only do we reap the image benefits as being seen as a green, environmentally conscious corporation, we also extend the lifetime of our precious resource! 
• This review paper by Muggeride et al., (2013) outlines the growing need for widespread deployment of EOR methods. It explains why, without EOR, mean global oil yields are 20-40%. Where EOR methods are employed, this can rise as high as 85%!

Conclusion

 As CEO of ExxonMobil I believe in the implementation of a carbon tax that would drive CCS development. As I see it, CCS is vital to our corporation for two key reasons. 

 Firstly, it portrays an environmentally conscious corporate image - something that we have tried, and failed, to build. Secondly, it extends the operational lifetime of our corporation. Without CCS we are the dodo, we are the mammoth. In the absence of evolution, extinction will befall us. The fossil fuel industry has to change - CCS is that change. And what is more, a useful byproduct compliments CCS  - a cheap source of CO2 to use for EOR. 

 Oh those sweet juicy profits!

Leo on CCS

Introduction

This weeks guest stakeholder contribution comes from Leonardo Di Caprio!

Leo on CCS

 I am Hollywood's face of environmentalism. I have experienced a successful acting career, and in some ways, feel that I have been bestowed with the power to induce change. I have championed the battle against climate change, producing and starring in documentaries such as Before the Flood and Biomimicry.

 Climate change represents an existential threat to humanity. Peters et al., (2013) suggests RCP2.6 (see this skeptical science blog for description), the only IPCC scenario that limits temperature rise to below 2 degrees, would require near immediate emission reductions and negative emissions beyond 2070.

 So where does CCS come in? Reiner (2016) suggests that the 2 degree limit can only be attained through carbon capture technologies and that the technology must NOW make the transition from pilot to industrial scale, or 2 degrees of warming will be locked in.

 However, having read posts in this blog over previous weeks, I agree with Lewis Holden in that many CCS pilot projects have been hijacked by big oil. So how can CCS work for the environmentalist?

Blue Planet

 I recently joined the board of Blue Planet, a CCS development company based in Los Angeles. This company has recognised that, economically, CCS is only viable if a monetary incentive is presented. For example, Saskpower sold their captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

 Worrell et al., (2001) calculates that the global cement industry accounts for 5% of all CO2 emissions and Gregg et al., (2008) notes the rapid growth of this industry in China, which now accounts for 50% of all global CO2 emissions from cement production. At Blue Planet we are developing (and have patented) technology that captures CO2 from industrial power plants and utilises it in cement production. The process is outlined in my documentary, Biomimicry (starts a 7:50).

 How wonderful! A double CO2 sequestration. Captured in the chimney and stored in the cement! Professor Peter Claisse wrote this article discussing the method and the unresolved issues associated with it. These are summarised below:

• CO2 captured from power stations reacts with concrete and is sequestered. However, the process is very slow and very large surface areas of concrete to are required for the process to be economical.
• 260 million tonnes of CO2 could be sequestered in cement each year (though such figures are associated with huge uncertainties).
• The enhanced carbonation increases the risk of steel corrosion within concrete. Hence, there are many engineering applications where such concrete would be unsafe, such as in bridges or buildings.
• An engineering application where the technique would be useful is a floor of a warehouse. Here the risk of steel corrosion is very low, hence carbonated concrete could be used.

Conclusion

 For too long we have sat and and argued about how to fight the enemy. It is already rolling over the horizon. We find ourselves with the lesser hand. We must, of course, move towards 100% renewable energies as soon as possible. Can we do this tomorrow? No. CCS must play a role in reducing carbon emissions in the meantime. Evidently, CCS must first be monetised, and in the most environmentally friendly way possible. The technology is largely unproven, but I think CCS and concrete production may be the answer.

Maggie on CCS

Introduction 

 Over the next few weeks I will move away from my view of CCS and take a wider look at how stakeholders such as policymakers, environmentalists and energy companies perceive the role of CCS.

 This week I invoke the spirit of the late (Great? Evil? - I suppose that splits opinion) Margaret Thatcher....

Maggie on CCS

 Contrary to what your perceptions of me may be, I was one of the first politicians to bring the threat of climate change into the public eye. Here is my 1988 speech to The Royal Society, in which I discussed the threat of rising CO2 emissions.

 Since I was ousted from power the threat level from climate change has increased exponentially. So what is the solution? This blog is all about securing our climate future - i.e. working towards a world in which the impacts of climate change are nullified. As a policymaker, I believe a solution to climate change must comply with two key principles:

• Meeting the aim of the Paris Agreement in that it limits dangerous global warming to <2 degrees.
• Allow continued economic prosperity in the western world, achieve sustainable development in the developing world and, most importantly, not become a vehicle by which government can regulate the competitiveness of the private sector.

Complying with the Paris Agreement

 Azar et al., (2010) used three global energy system models to investigate the likelihood of a 2 degree warming cap. The study found negative emissions would significantly increase the likelihood of attaining such a target. The authors discuss that, at present, BECCS (biomass energy with carbon capture and storage) is the only method by which negative emissions can be attained. For me, this is why CCS holds the cards compared to renewable energies in securing our climate future.

Economic Prosperity

 I am more sceptical of CCS from an economic perspective. I am a free-marketeer, famed with developing the neoliberal economic ideology in Britain. I detest any and all government intervention in the private sector. For me, as well as many other right-wing politicians, this is what makes us fear mitigating climate change. 

 Scott et al., (2013) suggest CCS is failing to get off the ground globally due to the high capital investment required. Around the world private companies are not investing in CCS, and why should they, it is completely uneconomical according to Scott et al., (2013). The study goes on to suggest that market regulation is required to get CCS off the ground - this I utterly deplore.

 Scruggs (2012) discusses how concern over climate change has significantly declined since 2008 in the USA, citing concerns over living standards and economic growth that trump (get it...) concerns over climate change. 

 Bushnell et al., (2013) studied the effect of increasing cap-and-trade regulation in the EU during 2006 upon 552 stocks from the EUROSTOX index. Scott et al., (2013) suggest that cap-and-trade regulation must be further rolled out in order to make CCS profitable. Bushnell et al., (2013) found that companies operating in energy and electricity intensive industries suffered with heavy losses in the value of their stocks. So the bureaucratic, non-democratic EU profits whilst the pension pots of ordinary people decline - that doesn't seem like a fair deal to me!

Conclusion

 Environmentally, CCS makes sense. But, to me, it is simply a vehicle by which the socialist ideology of regulation, taxation and subsidy can be implemented. Studies show people place economic growth over climate concerns. Climate change must be fought,  but not at the detriment of economic stability. An economy that promotes CCS would represent everything I fought against. Securing our climate future lies elsewhere.

A short note on Trump and CCS

 I'm probably a little late on the implications-of-trump-for-my-niche-field-post bandwagon, but we'll plough on regardless.

 The Donald has explicitly stated his support for clean coal - presumably via CCS, how else would the dirtiest fossil fuel become clean? His reasoning lies in the promise of jobs and economic growth in the coal mining industry in America's deindustrialised coal belt.

 My advice: follow the German model. There, generous renewables subsidies have contributed to a green jobs boom. Cheaper energy (see figure 4 from my last post), zero emissions and fewer environmental impacts associated with coal mining. Its a simple choice Don.

CCS: Present Research & Future Perspectives

Introduction

 In previous posts I explored the geological and economic viability of CCS and presented an in depth  CCS case study. Here I take a look at recent published literature in the field and where the future of CCS lies.

 I started this blog with a meagre view of CCS. Geologically, I found CCS made sense. But studying the Boundary Dam project and the economics of CCS, I'm now questioning whether CCS is the key to securing our climate future. Could this post lay out an alternative CCS pathway that changes my mind?

Perspectives from Britain

  Evidently, the British government had the same epiphany as me. In 2015 £1 billion earmarked for CCS projects in the UK was withdrawn by the government.

  Off the back of this decision planned CCS projects, such as Shell's Peterhead CCS project and the White Rose CCS project, have been cancelled.

 Some might say Shell should be forced to fund CCS projects themselves in order to limit their environmental impact, rather than relying on subsidies. Indeed, in 2011 (under sky high oil prices) Maersk planned to do just that; with plans to build integrated oil extraction > gas burning > electricity producing > carbon capturing > carbon sequestering > enhanced oil recovery facilities.

 With collapsing oil prices such projects will, unfortunately, not come to fruition. However, this editorial by Curtis Oldenburg projects a rosy outlook for CCS under low oil prices. Oldenburg suggests CO2 storage can be turned into an incentive for oil companies by allowing them to use the stored CO2 for EOR when oil prices recover.

 Other studies, such as this paper by Muriel Cozier, suggest that the future of CCS in the UK is bleak. I have to say, I think I agree.

BECCS - The saviour for CCS?

 If we are serious about limiting temperature rise to <2 degrees under the terms of the Paris Agreement, then there must be a paradigm shift in how we produce energy. The 2015 IPCC AR5 introduced the concept of cumulative carbon emissions:

Figure 1: From the summary for policymakers of IPCC WG1 AR5. Dependent on the relative concentration pathway (RCP) taken (a particular emissions scenario; see this blog for detailed explanation), limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees means limiting cumulative GtC output to <700-1000 GtC.

 Under 3 of the IPCC's 4 RCP's this threshold is passed before 2050. Beyond 2050, negative emissions of CO2 are required to limit warming to <2 degrees. With little viability in the direct atmospheric removal of carbon dioxide (see the Royal Societies 2009 geoengineering report) the only viable method for atmospheric CO2 removal is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

 Biomass (e.g crops & trees) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. By using this biomass to produce biofuels (e.g wood & liquid fuels) and employing CCS to capture the emitted CO2, net CO2 emissions from energy production are negative. This 2016 review paper by V Mohan and this report from the Grantham Institute explain the process in depth.

Figure 2: From the Centre for Carbon Removal. The process of BECCS, graphically explained.

 Truong et al., 2016 modelled the global impact of BECCS on climate change. The study found that replacing coal fired power stations with BECCS facilities resulted in negative CO2 emissions and contributed significantly to reductions in global temperature rise by 2100. 

 Moreira et al., 2016 modelled the regional impact of BECCS deployment in Brazil. The study found BECCS had the potential to reduce Brazil's CO2 emissions by 5% and that economic benefits would be concentrated in rural agricultural communities - commonly those which suffer most from climate change. However, the study found that such an implementation would increase electricity costs by $3/MwH for consumers, and that a carbon tax would be needed to offset such a rise.

 The economic outlook of BECCS modelled by Muratori et al., 2016 is significantly rosier. This model found a world with widespread BECCS deployment limited increases in global food prices, by reducing the price of carbon, to which the price of food is known to be linked. 

Does the future of CCS lie in the developing world?

 China and India combined emit almost a third of global CO2. With growing populations and an increasing thirst for a western consumer lifestyle, could CCS make gains in the countries which will contribute the most CO2 over the coming decades?

Figure 3: From the US Department of Energy. Global CO2 emissions by country.

 Viebahn et al., 2014 assessed the viability of CCS in India. The study found that ~75Gt of CO2 could be captured by 2050 from coal fired power stations. However, the study cited a lack of investment in CCS in the developed world as hindering CCS efforts in India. The generally high costs of CCS in a country still plagued with poverty is also cited as a significant barrier to CCS roll out. This paper by Singh & Singh (2016) outlines CCS development in India.

 In China, less public backlash (and a more authoritative government) in response to large industrial projects improves the likelihood of CCS success. The Shenhua Ordos CCS facility, which operated between 2011 and 2014, captured 300,000 tonnes of CO2. Zhang et al., 2016 describes the success of the project and the outstanding safety record of the facility over its 3 year lifetime.

Conclusions

 In Britain, withdrawal of government funding and a lack of willingness from oil companies to invest in CCS has all but ended CCS development.

  If like me, you're sceptical the Paris Agreement can limit temperature rise to 2 degrees, then you might think that BECCS will be needed to contribute towards negative emissions. However, the ecological and environmental impacts of deforestation would likely be major barriers.

 In China and India, CCS could be vital in limiting future CO2 emissions. Like I have said in this blog previously however: why bother when renewables are just cheaper...

Figure 4: Zero emissions nuclear, geothermal and wind are all cheaper than CCS - why bother?